The real point I was trying to make is that one of the
requirements for the new architecture is that it should be
designed to be adept at adapting to changing conditions and
requirements.
a.
Tony Li wrote:
>
> Hmmm... well, let me opine some simple things:
>
> First, there is no point in even discussing architectures that require a
> flag day. Do we agree on this?
>
> Second, is the differentiation between 'evolutionary' and 'revolutionary'
> even important? Or is it just a semantic debate? And if so, what is the
> point?
>
> We should be selecting the architecture that best fits our requirements.
> And we shouldn't care if it's called 'leftovers', 'historic', 'legacy', or
> 'X.25' if it does.
>
> Tony
>
>
> avri writes:
> | Hi,
> |
> | I had a conversation with a few folks in Mpls, and realized
> | that at least one of the points we were attempting to make
> | in the GroupB requirements was not clearly written.
> |
> | This is an attempt to clarify that.
> |
> | Several people have mentioned that restricting the
> | requirements to something that is purely evolutionary just
> | won't do, and have criticized the Group B requirements for
> | requiring an evolutionary approach. I.e. they are critical
> | of the requirement to evolve from today's network to
> | tomorrow's network and argue that a revolutionary approach
> | is necessary.
> |
> | The evolutionary approach we are requiring has more to do
> | with the nature of the future architecture then with how we
> | move from the present to that future. What is being argued
> | for is that the capability to evolve be an integral part of
> | the architecture so that as the material conditions of the
> | network change, the architecture will be able to evolve to
> | meet those conditions.
> |
> | The question then becomes whether we can get to such an
> | inherently evolutionary architecture, something that would
> | be radically different then the current architecture, by
> | evolution. From a hypothetical point of view, I believe that
> | if the evolutionary architecture is sufficiently so then it
> | should be possible to absorb the current architecture into
> | its evolutionary path and proceed from there. This is a
> | belief that remains to be proven. One of the first things
> | though seems to be the requirement to delve deeper into what
> | it means to be an inherently evolutionary routing
> | architecture. This is something I am just beginning to
> | think through and will probably send mail on in the future.
> | Anyone have any thoughts on this?
> |
> | cheers
> | a.
> | --
> | Avri Doria
> |
> | Institute for System Technology Mobile: +46 73 029 8019
> |
> | Lulea University of Technology Office: +46 920 49 3030
> |
> | SE 971-87 Lulea In US: +1 401 663 5024
> | Sweden avri@sm.luth.se
> |
> |
> |
>
>
>
-- Avri DoriaInstitute for System Technology Mobile: +46 73 029 8019
Lulea University of Technology Office: +46 920 49 3030
SE 971-87 Lulea In US: +1 401 663 5024 Sweden avri@sm.luth.se
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 04:10:04 EDT